> Neither is a good outcome imho. Subsidizing people who are out of work while all employees earn a livable wage is a categorically better outcome than having

> Neither is a good outcome imho. Subsidizing people who are out of work while all employees earn a livable wage is a categorically better outcome than having to subsidize everyone, employed or not, just because companies don't feel like paying a livable wage. > If more subsidies are lost, they are worse off, and thus, would rather stop working and get the maximum subsidies instead. This is an easily preventable issue that can be avoided by phasing out the subsidies instead of setting a hard cut-off.